alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008229EN.01001302.xml

| 6.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/13

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5075 — Vienna Insurance Group/EBV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 229/07)

On 17 June 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5075. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5075. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 190 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of Mesa Verde National Park. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 1, 2005 

Mr. SALAZAR (for himself and Mr. ALLARD) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of Mesa Verde National 

Park.

Whereas Mesa Verde National Park was created 100 years 

ago by an Act of Congress and signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt on June 29, 1906, as the first 

National Park set aside to preserve the works of humankind; 

Whereas the more than 5,000 archeological sites, including 

over 600 cliff dwellings, protected within the 52,000-acre 

boundary of Mesa Verde National Park represent some 

of the most spectacular and best-preserved prehistoric architecture in the world; 

Whereas in 1928, Congress declared the natural resources of 

Mesa Verde National Park to be of such caliber as to be 
2

•SRES 190 ATS

worthy of the same level of protection as the cultural resources therein; 

Whereas 8,500 acres within Mesa Verde National Park were 

designated as wilderness by Congress on October 20, 

1976; 

Whereas on September 8, 1978, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

(‘‘UNESCO’’) declared Mesa Verde National Park to be 

1 of 8 original World Cultural Heritage Sites; 

Whereas Mesa Verde National Park is part of our American 

heritage that is universally recognized and shared with 

the world; 

Whereas Mesa Verde National Park is the primary driving 

force behind the economy of southwestern Colorado and 

the Four Corners Region; 

Whereas the communities of Cortez, Dolores, Mancos, and 

Durango, Colorado, have come together to plan a yearlong celebration worthy of this magnificent icon of the 

National Park System; and 

Whereas 24 American Indian tribes recognize Mesa Verde as 

their ancestral home and contribute a rich cultural heritage to the experience of visitors to the region: Now, 

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the 100th anniversary of Mesa 

3 Verde National Park; and 

4 (2) urges all citizens of the United States to 

5 join in the Centennial Celebration of Mesa Verde 
3

•SRES 190 ATS

1 National Park by participating in the many activities 

2 planned throughout the year in 2006.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) thisQuarterly Report of Cruzan International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of December31, 2005 and its results of operations for the period ended December 31, 2005.

 
|                    | /s/ Jay S. Maltby                      |   |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Jay  S. Maltby                         |
|                    | Chief  Executive Officer and President |
|                    |                                   |
|                    |                                   |
| Date: February 13, 2006 |                                   |

 

1

----
WalterC.BeckjordSO2EmissionsSource:CleanAirMarketsDivisionUnitIDYearSO2(tons)TotalforYear(tons)Unit January February March April May June July August SeptemberOctober November December1 2008 2,431.5452312.89 1233.69 1841.44 1965.11 288.49 6.11 1348.93 119.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 2008 1,738.0665010.98 3795.20 3667.22 3549.07 0.00 5.74 4817.56 2640.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.003 2008 3,554.09Facility7323.87 5028.90 5508.66 5514.18 288.49 11.85 6166.49 2760.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004 2008 4,985.545 2008 4,712.976 2008 8,978.3226,400.521 2009 2,097.942 2009 2,527.043 2009 3,347.044 2009 6,756.475 2009 7,566.786 2009 19,669.2441,964.511 20102 20103 20104 2010 4,492.465 2010 17,719.176 2010 46,944.6469,156.261 20112 2011 44.333 2011 42.044 2011 2,884.315 2011 30,555.616 2011 57,308.2290,834.501 20122 20123 2012 1,732.394 2012 2,697.965 2012 19,639.146 2012 42,999.3467,068.831 20132 20133 20134 2013 1,546.015 2013 19,324.966 2013 31,029.3651,900.331 20142 20143 20144 20145 2014 9,116.646 2014 23,485.8032,602.44
Case: 2:11-cv-00142-EAS-EPD Doc #: 3 Filed: 04/13/11 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00142-EAS-EPD Doc #: 3 Filed: 04/13/11 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-12T13:21:22-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
LOUISVILLE 

REGIONAL 

AIRPOR T 

AUTHORITY' 

March 12,2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT-OST-20104BI 

P.O. 80X9129 Dear Mr. Secretary: 

LOUISVILLE, K Y 

40209-0129 

TEL 502/368-6524 

On behalf of the Louisville Regional Airport Authority I would like to express our 

support for the application for antitrust immunity and proposed joint business 

agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan Airlines. The proposed alliance 

would enable these two airlines to cooperate more closely to improve travel 

choices, offer more convenient schedules, and provide customers with more 

opportunities to earn and redeem frequent flyer miles. In addition, this alliance 

would stimulate competition among the three major global airline alliances which 

will further enhance travel choices and schedules for the consumer. 

FAX ADMINISTRATIVE 

502/367-0199 

FAX ENGINEERING 

502/368-5895 

Easy access to the US-Asia marketplace is important to Louisville and our many 

corporate partners. We welcome the enhanced access to the global marketplace, 

new scheduling options and competition that the AA/JAL alliance offers and we 

encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this application for 

antitrust immunity. 

FAX MAINTENANCE/ 

PURCHASING AND 

PROCUREMENT 

502/380-8270 

LOUISVILLE 

INTERNATIONAL 

AIRPORT 

Sincerely 

Charles "Skip" Miller, A.A.E. 

Executive Director 

BOWMAN FIELD 

e-maiL lraa@flylouisville.com vnv/il/lows.nlle.com
No. 43054.

#### Protest 836940-G of Bullocks, Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstracts 30313 and 30073 the brass weights and brass letter openers in question were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 121 

Supporting May 2005 as ‘‘National Better Hearing and Speech Month’’ 

and commending those States that have implemented routine hearing 

screenings for every newborn before the newborn leaves the hospital. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2005 

Mr. COLEMAN (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Ms. SNOWE) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions 

RESOLUTION

Supporting May 2005 as ‘‘National Better Hearing and 

Speech Month’’ and commending those States that have 

implemented routine hearing screenings for every newborn before the newborn leaves the hospital.

Whereas the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders reports that approximately 

28,000,000 people in the United States experience hearing loss or have a hearing impairment; 

Whereas 1 out of every 3 people in the United States over 

the age of 65 have hearing loss; 

Whereas the overwhelming majority of people in the United 

States with hearing loss would benefit from the use of a 
2

•SRES 121 IS

hearing aid and fewer than 7,000,000 people in the 

United States use a hearing aid; 

Whereas 30 percent of people in the United States suffering 

from hearing loss cite financial constraints as an impediment to hearing aid use; 

Whereas hearing loss is among the most common congenital 

birth defects; 

Whereas a delay in diagnosing the hearing loss of a newborn 

can affect the social, emotional, and academic development of the child; 

Whereas the average age at which newborns with hearing loss 

are diagnosed is between the ages of 12 to 25 months; 

and 

Whereas May 2005 is ‘‘National Better Hearing and Speech 

Month’’, providing Federal, State, and local governments, 

members of the private and nonprofit sectors, hearing 

and speech professionals, and all people in the United 

States an opportunity to focus on preventing, mitigating, 

and treating hearing impairments: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of May 2005 

3 as ‘‘National Better Hearing and Speech Month’’; 

4 (2) commends those States that have imple5 mented routine hearing screenings for every newborn 

6 before the newborn leaves the hospital; and 

7 (3) encourages all people in the United States 

8 to have their hearing checked regularly.

Æ
ProposedCarbonMonoxideMonitoringRevisionsWouldPlaceMonitorsNearMajorRoadsinLareUrbanAreasg24urbanareaswouldneed2monitors29urbanareaswouldneed1monitor
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 12/16/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

ROLAND S. WEAVER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

CITY OF TOPEKA; TOPEKA

HOUSING AUTHORITY; LANA

BALKA, Topeka Housing Authority

Director; LAWRENCE WILSON, Topeka

Housing Authority Assistant Director;

STEVE CORELLO, Topeka Housing

Authority Inspector; LINDA

FREDERICKS; LINDSEY HALL;

SECRETARY OF UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT; INSPECTOR

GENERAL OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT; DONNA

WHITEMAN, Secretary of Kansas Social

and Rehabilitation Services; FAIR

HOUSING DEPARTMENT; UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA; DAVID HALL;

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL

AND REHABILITATION SERVICES,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-3218

(D.C. No. 94-4224-SAC)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

- 2 -

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Weaver was a tenant in a federally subsidized rental program and now appeals

from the district court’s dismissal of his action arising from a $558 damage assessment

against him. Although the district court considered matters outside the pleadings in ruling

on the motions to dismiss, it also gave Mr. Weaver an opportunity to seek reconsideration

with evidentiary materials. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Although he filed an untimely

motion for “redetermination,” Mr. Weaver did not come forward with either evidentiary

materials that create a genuine issue of material fact or legal argument responsive to the

district court’s resolution. 

AFFIRMED. We GRANT Mr. Weaver’s motion to proceed without prepayment

of costs or fees. All other pending motions and objections are denied. The mandate shall

issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Ecological characteristics ofold-growth Douglas-fir forests**
 
Part 1 | Part2
 
SuDoc:A 13.88:PNW-118
Item Number:0083-B-06 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000922343
 
November 29, 2017
Case: 2:12-cv-01134-MHW-NMK Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/03/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:12-cv-01134-MHW-NMK Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/03/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 49336.

#### Protests 94389-K, etc., of Kwan Yuen Co. et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RICHARD D. MacQUARRIE, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

17 USCMA 529, 38 CMR 327

No. 21,008

May 10, 1968

*Captain Peter B. Work,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Steven A. Weidner,*USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam:

Tried by special court-martial, the accused was convicted of four counts of absence without leave, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, 10 USC § 886, and sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $86.00 per month for six months, and confinement at hard labor for six months.

While none of the offenses of which accused was found guilty authorized the imposition of a bad-conduct discharge, such was allowed by the evidence of prior convictions and the fact that permissible confinement for two or more of the offenses amounted to six months or more. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, paragraph 127e. The president nonetheless failed to instruct the court members regarding the basis for this additional punishment. Such was prejudicial error. United States v Cox, 17 USCMA 294, 38 CMR 92; United States v Yocom, 17 USCMA 270, 38 CMR 68; United States v Hutton, 14 USCMA 366, 34 CMR 146.

Accordingly, the petition for review is granted. The decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The board may disapprove that portion of the sentence adjudging a punitive discharge or order a rehearing on the sentence.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60321

Summary Calendar

 

PERRIN W. HURDLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:95-CV-247-BRR

- - - - - - - - - -

April 15, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Perrin Hurdle appeals the summary-judgment

dismissal of his age-discrimination lawsuit. He argues that

genuine issues of material fact exist which preclude summary

judgment; that the district court violated his constitutional

rights by holding that an otherwise invalid waiver could be

ratified; and that, even if it had been ratified, the waiver he

executed did not bar his age-discrimination claim. We have
No. 96-60321

- 2 -

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and conclude

that summary judgment was properly awarded in favor of Appellee

Sears, Roebuck and Company. Accordingly, we affirm for

essentially the reasons given by the district court. See

Blakeney v. Lomas Info. Sys., Inc., 65 F.3d 482, 484-85 (5th Cir.

1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1042 (1996); Wamsley v. Champlin

Refining & Chem., Inc., 11 F.3d 534, 539-40 (5th Cir. 1993),

cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1403 (1995).

Hurdle’s constitutional arguments, raised for the first time

on appeal, do not show error, plain or otherwise. 

AFFIRMED.
No. 48663.

#### Protests 619728-G, etc., of Roethlisberger & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269. The protests were therefore sustained.
Order entered September 21, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00205-CV

IN RE BYRON CURTIS COOK, TRADE RARE, L.L.C., AND JOEL 

HOCHBERG, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 417th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 417-04885-2016

ORDER

Before the Court En Banc

Before the Court is relators’ August 24, 2020 motion for reconsideration en 

banc. Real parties are requested to file a response, if any, within TWENTY 

DAYS of the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                                                           EXHIBIT 11

           STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION


                                         Three months ended March 31,
                                               1997        1996
                                         (Dollar amounts in millions,
                                            except for share data)
Primary

Average shares outstanding                     66.2         67.9
Net effect of dilutive stock options--
  based on the treasury stock method
  using average market price                    1.9*         1.7*
                                               ____         ____
                                   TOTAL       68.1         69.6
                                               ====         ====

Net income                                    $81.0       $115.3
Preferred dividends                            (2.6)        (4.4)
Preferred stock redemption cost                (3.8)
                                              _____       ______
Net income to common                          $74.6       $110.9
                                              =====       ======

Per share amount                              $1.13        $1.63
                                              =====        =====

Fully Diluted

Average shares outstanding                     66.2         67.9
Net effect of dilutive stock options--
  based on the treasury stock method
  using the market price at quarter
  end if higher than the average
  market price for three months                 2.1          1.7
                                               ____         ____
                                   TOTAL       68.3         69.6
                                               ====         ====

Net income                                    $81.0       $115.3
Preferred dividends                            (2.6)        (4.4)
Preferred stock redemption cost                (3.8)
                                              _____       ______
Net income to common                          $74.6       $110.9
                                              =====       ======

Per share amount                              $1.09        $1.59
                                              =====        =====

*Not included in per share calculation because effect is less than 3%.
# C_2008247EN.01000101.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/1

---

(2008/C 247/01)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 236, 13.9.2008

OJ C 236, 13.9.2008

Past publications

OJ C 223, 30.8.2008

OJ C 209, 15.8.2008

OJ C 197, 2.8.2008

OJ C 183, 19.7.2008

OJ C 171, 5.7.2008

OJ C 158, 21.6.2008

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---